First - The United Nations recognizes that war is an acceptible action in only two situations - when a country is attacked or when attack is imminent. The Bush administration has gone to great lengths to stress that they never said (or believed) that an attack from Iraq was imminent. Hence, our actions in Iraq violate international law. America needs to either be in, or be out of, the U.N. and accept the consequences of whatever decision is made. Personally, I think we should remain in the U.N. and should not have attacked Iraq. If we are unwilling to abide by international law, let's have the policy debate and withdraw from the U.N. That having been said, Iraq posed among the least terrorist threat to our interests of any country in the middle east. Even assuming that Saddam had WMD, (1) he had never attacked America or Americans in his long tenure as a dictator. Why would he change now?(okay, he did wish to assasinate GHWB, but that never really amounted to a serious threat) (2) Had he given WMD to terrorists (i.e. al Qaeda), he was at greater risk of having them used against his regime than against America (3) His first targets would have been Israel, Iran, or the Kurds. He was interested in keeping and expanding his power, not in needlessly provoking a war he knew he couldn't win against the U.S. He knew that fundamentalist Islamics posed a great threat to his rule. While there undoubtedly were contacts and cooperations between Saddam and terrorists as matters of joint convenience, Saddam could not afford to allow the terrorist network to operate on any scale in Iraq, or to fund them, or to arm them, because his secular regime was anti-Allah. So, why did we pick Iraq? The U.N. sponsored intervention in Afghanistan was, and is, a proper response to the terrorist activities that were allowed to occur there. Rather than finishing the job and installing a true deomcracy in Afghanistan, once we secured Kabul, we pulled all but 13,000 of our troops out to go to Iraq. That has resulted in every area of Afghanistan being controlled by warlords with the sole exception of Kabul. These are the same warlords that were in power 3 years ago. We used to call them Taliban because they nominally accepted Taliban control. As a more practical matter, the Taliban didn't tell them what to do and they didn't attack the Taliban controlled territories. Now that we have toppled the Taliban regime, these tribal chieftans have reverted from being Taliban to being warlords. We have not brought freedom or peace to the vast majority of Afghanistan. We could have, perhaps, had we stayed the course. Maybe even prevented the bombings in Spain. But, Iraq beckoned. So, why did we pick Iraq? Pakistan has nuclear capability. It gave nuclear technology to numerous terrorist and rogue states over the last few years. It has steadfastly refused to tame its northwest provinces. Is anyone really surprised that the "anvil" part of "Operation Hammer and Anvil" resulted in finding an escape tunnel or that a "large value" terrorist wasn't captured? Terrorists still operate relatively freely in Pakistan with the studied indifference of our allies in control. Perhaps we could have demanded that U.N./American soldiers be allowed to provide the anvil in the Pakistanni west if we still had 150,000 troops in Afghanistan, but Iraq beckoned. So, why did we pick Iraq? The House of Saud has allowed fundamentalist Islamics to run free in Saudi Arabia. The bulk of terrorist financing and numerous sophisticated training camps were located in Saudi Arabia. 19 of the 20 9/11 terrorists were actually Saudis! And, by the way, you might recall that when GWB was running against the Clinton legacy, he railed against the then high gas prices. He told us he would use some of the political capital he would create with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to convince them to increase production. I think it's time to cash in some of that capital, George. But, the House of Saud is our friend, and the alternative is certainly much, much worse. We really can't demand that they crack down on terrorism because the terrorists would topple their government in a heartbeat (and may, soon, anyway). And, Iraq beckoned. So, why did we pick Iraq? Iran has known nuclear capabilities. They appear to be fairly neutral with regard to terrorists (you can use our country, but we'll arrest you if you go riling up our countrymen). We owe them one. They have a substantial "liberal" base that covets western ways and western freedom. Perhaps we could have created sufficient civil unrest in Iran that the Islamic government would have been toppled from inside. But, Iraq beckoned. So, why did we pick Iraq? North Korea has a certifiably insane leader, has bragged of its development of nuclear bombs, and has lobbed a pair of missles up near Alaska to prove that it can deliver to American soil. You want really dangerous? Here it is. But, . . . So, why did we pick Iraq? The PLO commits terrorist attacks every day. They accept support from terrorist states. My problem, besides establishing that we will take preemptive strikes against any target that we want to, is that we haven't acted against terrorism by attacking Iraq. We have given the terrorists a fertile breeding ground and a lightning rod by going into a potential Islamic state that, democratically, cannot be ruled by any segment of society other than the Islamics. It would be a wonderful and beautiful thing if the Iraqi elections went smoothly and a legitimate goverment were installed and that government accommodated all segments of the society and all middle Eastern nations said "Look at Iraq. We want to be like them. We will root out any anti-democracy elements that operate in our country". Unfortunately, I believe that a much more likely scenario is that a majority Shiia government will be elected (how can it be otherwise?). As long as the U.S. retains a significant military presence there (what is the exit strategy? And the timeframe?), there will be relative peace and cooperation. However, as soon as we cede power, the Shiia (Shiia's? what's a plural Shiite?) will mandate adherence to religious doctrine. The Kurds will become militant creating a permanent civil war until they either break away or are forcibly subdued. The secularists will be forced to tow the Shiia line, or be persecuted. Radical clerics will preach the need to insure that every Islamic country have this same "democracy" where Allah is almighty and the satinist Americans are vilified. And, of course, the beauty of all this is that WE'RE PAYING FOR IT. So, alright, maybe I'm wrong about Iraq. I don't have access to all of the intelligence reports and all of the data. This is juts one man's thoughts. But - How do we measure success in the War on Terror and what is the exit strategy or when do we declare victory? While it is certainly true that there have been no more attacks on American soil since 9/11, al Qaeda went 8 years between attacks prior to 9/11. We won't have shown "improvement" for another 5+ years. The number of terrorist attacks worldwide have increased dramatically since we went to war. When will Americans actually be safer as a result of these actions? IMHO, this is the time that we need to cooperate and coordinate our efforts with all of our anti-terrorist allies. We need to bring France, Germany, Spain, and Poland into the fold. That doesn't mean contributing troops to Iraq. It does mean coordinating intelligence, safety precautions, police activities (for those who oppose the Clinton/Kerry/Richard Clarke response to terrorism). We need to strongly encourage our allies in the middle east (Saudi Arabia) to move to democracy. We need to finish the job in Afghanistan and either insist that Pakistan do the job or do it for them. We need to go after terrorism, not convenient target dictators. Just my $0.02 ($0.03 Canadian).